European Court Rules FIFA Transfer Rules Breach EU Law: A Game-Changer for Football
In a landmark ruling, the European Court of Justice has determined that certain FIFA rules governing football transfers violate European Union law, concluding a long-running legal battle involving former Chelsea and Arsenal midfielder Lassana Diarra.
Diarra’s legal team challenged FIFA’s regulations following the termination of his contract with Russian club Lokomotiv Moscow in 2014. They argued that these rules restricted his freedom of movement and breached competition laws, ultimately seeking damages from FIFA.
The court found that FIFA’s refusal to provide Diarra with an International Transfer Certificate (ITC) for a proposed move to Belgian club Charleroi in 2015 effectively impeded professional footballers’ ability to work at new clubs. The ruling highlighted that such restrictions could harm players’ relatively short careers.
Background of the Case
Diarra’s troubles began when he fell out with Lokomotiv’s manager, leading to the club’s claim that he had refused to train and subsequently dismissing him three years before the end of his contract. In 2016, FIFA and the Court of Arbitration for Sport ruled Diarra liable for breach of contract, ordering him to pay €10 million (£8.4 million) to Lokomotiv and suspending him from professional football for 15 months.
When Diarra sought to join Charleroi, the club needed assurances against liability for compensation to Lokomotiv. However, FIFA’s refusal to issue an ITC caused the deal to collapse. Diarra’s legal team contested FIFA’s rules that imposed joint liability for compensation and allowed national associations to withhold ITCs in dispute cases.
The court ruled that FIFA should not be able to use the ITC system to block players from moving and working where they choose, leading to potential revisions of FIFA’s transfer rules to comply with EU law.
Implications of the Ruling
FIFPro, the global players’ union, described the judgement as “a major ruling” that could “change the landscape of football.” Diarra’s legal representatives called it a “total victory” and believe it opens the door for players in similar situations to claim compensation. They argued that this ruling could accelerate the modernization of FIFA’s governance.
FIFA, while acknowledging the court’s decision, stated that the core principles of the transfer system remain intact. Emilio Garcia, FIFA’s chief legal and compliance officer, emphasized that the ruling only challenges two specific paragraphs of their regulations.
The court’s decision suggests that players with terminated contracts should have the freedom to sign with new clubs without incurring significant compensation liabilities to former clubs. This shift grants players and their agents greater power in the transfer market.
Sports barrister Yasin Patel noted that the ruling could lead to major changes in the transfer system, akin to the impact of the Bosman ruling in 1995, potentially allowing players to move more freely by breaking contracts.
However, sports finance expert Kieran Maguire cautioned that the ruling could be exploited, warning of potential negative consequences where players might down tools to engineer moves.
Maheta Molango, CEO of the Professional Footballers’ Association, remarked on the importance of the ruling for player rights within the transfer system, underscoring that football must adhere to the same employment laws as other industries.
The full ramifications of this ruling will unfold as FIFA works to revise its regulations in accordance with the court’s findings.